On the nature of theories/MAGIC DISHWASHER

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 47735

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> 
wrote:

> 
> Dumbledore lives *within* the books. 
> And you can look at him from the outside.
> Or you can try and analyse him from the inside.
> 
> But you'll find it awfully difficult to do both simultaneously.
> 

Unless that's what Dumbledore himself is doing <g>

Though  not as lofty a conception as Gandalf, Dumbledore  is 
also a mythic character (1). He can speak to the dead and 
communicate with beasts, he can recognize a genuine 
prediction,  he has lived one hundred fifty years, and though we 
see him first on Privet Drive, he clearly does not belong to it.  It
is at least conceivable that Dumbledore is more aware of 
himself from 'outside' than others in his world. Dumbledore may 
not know that he is a  character in a book, but he might consider 
himself as an actor on a great stage, whose part is to embody 
wisdom and goodness, so far as he can discern them, whether 
it seems that wisdom and goodness will prevail or not.

(1) The terminology is from Northrop Frye's An Anatomy of 
Criticism, as explained by Tom Shippey in "J.R.R. Tolkien, Author 
of the Century" (a much better book than its hyperbolic title would 
indicate.) Frye categorized literature into five modes determined 
solely by the nature of their characters:

myth--the characters are superior in 'kind' to other men and to 
the environment of other men

romance--the characters are superior in 'degree' to other men 
and to the environment of other men

high mimesis--the level typical of tragedy or epic, where the 
characters are superior to other men, but not to their 
environment

low mimesis--the level of the classic novel, where the characters 
are very much on a level with ourselves in abilities, though 
maybe not in social class

irony--we see ourselves looking down on people more ignorant 
or weaker than ourselves


Pippin